mgo.licio.us

"The face of the operation is Briatore (referred to exclusively in the film by his colleagues and angry, chanting detractors as "Flavio"), an anthropomorphic radish who spends most of his time at QPR plotting to fire all of the managers."

At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”

but I prefer Adidas, not just the color. I never understood the clamor for nike... For all the UNIFORMZ complainging they still looked better than that pro combat crap. To me it always seemed like People complained about something/things that were going to happen anyway... we were going to be bad in 2008/09/10 regardless of who our apparel contract was with, and we were going to get stupid special uniforms regardless of whether it was Adidas or Nike. As far as the UNIFORMZ go, I've always thought of Adidas as the lesser of two evils.

I just feel like Adidas got the contract at the wrong time and have gotten a bad rap for it. Maybe I'm wrong, just one man's opinion.

He certainly wasn't the best Bond villain, but doesn't belong on this list in my opinion. Seriously I doubt anyone would be smiling much if caught in his position.

The only issues I see with him as a Bond villain is that he has more of an air of desperation about him. Also his intimidation factor stems from nothing about him but the organization for which he works. He's not the scary boss of a multinational criminal organization, he's a broker for one.

I'm fully aware that the standards are different than those within the legal system, within that policy there is room for exactly the response outlined above. Suspend the guy from university grounds and functions until such time as he's proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can still work within the universities standards without jumping to expulsion immediately.

"Students, faculty and staff found to be in violation of this policy will be subject to discipline up to and including termination, expulsion or other appropriate institutional sanctions; affiliates and program participants may be removed from University programs and/or prevented from returning to campus."

It looks, however that in this case the student in question removed himself from the university making the argument moot with regards to this specific case. Had this been the actions of Stanford I would argue that the previously suggested response (suspend him then expell him pending a preponderance of evidence) is a far more appropriate response.

Imagine a scenario wherein someone is falsely accused of rape; the standard response would be immediate expulsion without allowing due process.

Pending a trial where he ends up being found guilty. If he was caught red handed there ought to be enough evidence to prove his guilt and he would then be expelled- but after due process. That's how this is supposed to work.